Privacy Settings

Claim No. SCT 107/2022

THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

In the name of His Highness Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum,
Ruler of Dubai

IN THE SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL OF DIFC COURTS
BEFORE H.E. JUSTICE MAHA AL MHEIRI

BETWEEN

MADESH

Claimant

and

MUHURA

Defendant

JUDGMENT OF H.E. JUSTICE MAHA AL MHEIRI

UPON this Claim being filed on 18 March 2022

AND UPON a hearing having been listed before H.E Justice Maha Al Mheiri on 11 May 2022, with the Claimant and the Defendant’s representative attending

AND UPON reading the submissions and evidence filed and recorded on the Court file

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Claimant’s claims shall be dismissed.

2. Each party shall bear their own costs.

Issued by:
Ayesha Bin Kalban
SCT Judge and Registrar
Date of issue: 14 June 2022
At: 11am

THE REASONS

The Parties

1. The Claimant is Madesh (the “Claimant”), an individual filing a claim regarding his employment at the Defendant company.

2. The Defendant is Mahura (the “Defendant”), a company registered in the DIFC located in DIFC, Dubai, UAE.

Background and the Preceding History

3. The underlying dispute arises over the employment of the Claimant byMilinaspursuant to an Employment Contract dated 15 April 2021 (the “Employment Contract”).

4. In March 2021, the Claimant was contacted by an employee of the Defendant looking to hire employees to work for the Defendant. The Claimant sent his cv to the Defendant’s employee pursuant to this.

5. On 26 March 2021, the Claimant attended an interview with Mistan, who was the Director and Shareholder at the Defendant, and Moft, who was a Director of Operations at the Defendant. The topics being discussed at the interview were solely related to the Defendant’s project, and at no point during this interview was Milinas. mentioned.

6. Following this interview, on 9 April 2021, the Claimant was invited for a follow-up call with Macin, who is a director and shareholder of the Defendant. During this call, the Claimant’s background was discussed as well as some details surrounding the Defendant, at no point was Milinas mentioned during this call.

7. On 18 April 2021, being the Claimant’s first day of work, he was asked to work on tasks relating to ‘Novus Money’. The Claimant submits that he was confused, as he believed he would be working for the Defendant and was not familiar with an entity named ‘Milinas’.

8. The Claimant submits that he continued working on the task as he assumed ‘Milinas’ was a project of the Defendant. It was not until 21 April 2021, when he received his offer letter from Macin, that he submits that he became concerned, as the Employment Contract stated Milinas. as his employer. The Claimant submits that he raised his concerns with Macin, explaining that he was confused as to why his contract was with Milinas and not with the Defendant, as he had expected to be working for the Defendant, Macin. The response received was that both entities are fintech entities. The Claimant submits that during the conversation, Macin both explicitly and implicitly said that the name of the company on the contract did not matter, as in reality, the Claimant would be working for the Defendant. The Claimant submits that his response was that he understood and was happy to help out with Milinas for the time-being knowing that they need all the support. The Claimant submits that he wanted to make clear to Macin that despite his contract being with Milinas

9. he was in fact, working for the Defendant and the Defendant’s projects.

10. The Claimant submits that over the course of his first month of employment his responsibilities shifted towards the Defendant’s work, for which he was involved on a number of their projects. Despite the Claimant’s contract being with Milinas Ltd., in reality, the Claimant submits that he worked as an Analyst at the Defendant, only occasionally helping with Milinas. related tasks.

11. On 13 September 2021, the Claimant submitted his resignation to Macin. During conversation with Macin, the Claimant requested that a waiver of the contractual one-month notice and instead, complete the current work and hand over all the information necessary to the team. In exchange, the Claimant requested that the Defendant would only have to pay the Claimant for the portion he served. Macin agreed to the proposal and the Claimant’s last working day was on 23 September 2021.

12. The Claimant submits that he followed up with Macin on numerous occasions for his final settlement payment with no use. On 18 March 2022, the Claimant filed a claim in the DIFC Courts’ Small Claims Tribunal (the “SCT”) claiming various sums in the total amount of AED 84,359 as follows:

13. On 18 April 2022, the Defendant filed an Acknowledgment of Service setting out its intention to defend all of the claim.

14. The parties met for a Consultation with SCT Judge Maitha AlShehhi on 25 April 2022 but were unable to reach a settlement. In line with the rules and procedures of the SCT, this matter was referred to me for determination, pursuant to a Hearing held on 11 May 2022.

15. On 20 May 2022, I requested further information from the parties demonstrating the relationship between the Defendant and the Milinas. The parties filed their submissions on 6 June 2022.

The Claim

16. The Claimant’s case is that he was working with the Defendant as a ‘Business Analyst’ from 18 April 2021 until 23 September 2022.

17. The Claimant, pursuant to his resignation, had sought to agree an amount to be paid to him by the Defendant. The amounts proposed by the Claimant were denied by the Defendant and therefore the Claimant proceeded to file his Claim with the SCT.

18. The total sum claimed by the Claimant as set out in the Claim Form is AED 84,539.

The Defence

19. In reply to the Claimant’s submissions, the Defendant submits that the Claimant was never an employee of the Defendant. The Claimant has always been an employee of Milinas., as demonstrated in the Employment Contract signed between them.

20. In addition, the Claimant’s visa was issued by Milinas., which confirms that they are the Claimant’s employer.

21. In the Claimant’s submissions he submits that he was paid his monthly salary by the Defendant. The email proof provided by the Claimant contains payment from Muhura, a UK company and copies of payments are from the company’s foreign exchange provider Minas Partners and not the Defendant. As such, the Defendant submits that no payments were made by the Defendant to the Claimant.

Discussion

22. This dispute is governed by DIFC Employment Law No. 2 of 2019 (the “DIFC Employment Law”) in conjunction with the relevant Employment Contract.

23. Both the Claimant and the Defendant have submitted numerous and detailed submissions. I limit my discussion in this judgment to those submissions which are necessary for my determination of the Claimant’s claim. Needless to say, consideration has been given to each of the Claimant’s claims, factual or legal, as has consideration been given to the Defendant’s responses thereto.

24. First and foremost, the Court shall deal with the issue of identifying the Claimant’s employer.

Claimant’s employer

25. After review of the parties’ submission the Court is satisfied that in order for an employer employee relationship to exist there needs to be an employment contract that regulates that relationship which will also regulate any financial obligation between them.

26. In the Claimant’s situation there is a valid Employment Contract signed with Milinas., in addition to that, the Claimant’s visa is also issued under Milinas. The Court also took note that the Claimant is working in Milinas’s offices which also happens to be the Defendant’s office.

27. In his submissions, the Claimant submits that when he received the Employment Contract from Milinas Money, he raised the issue with Macin that he was expecting to work with the Defendant and not Milinas. The Claimant did not request a written letter from the Defendant that they are the same entities or that they are working on mutual projects or anything that indicates that he is an employee of the Defendant. In fact, he continued working there without raising any issues.

28. In addition, the fact that the Claimant’s salaries were received from Muhuru, has nothing to do with the fact that he signed with Milinas. Article 12 of the Employment Law provides:

29. Although the Claimant was under the assumption that he will work with the Defendant, that assumption was rectified as soon as he received the Employment Contract which was clear in the employer’s company name, clauses and obligations of the employee. The Claimant did sign the Employment Contract and did continue working with these conditions. Moreover, the Claimant failed to get any written clarification in relation to his working situation and continued to work with Milinas for 6 months, which indicates that the Claimant agreed with the working terms and conditions.

30. When the Defendant was requested to clarify the relationship between Milinas, the Defendant responded to state that Milinas and the Defendant are separate corporate entities with separate commercial objectives. The Defendant is engaged in fintech consultancy services for the UAE and international companies, Milinas. is engaged in providing electronic payment services. The Defendant submits that there is no contractual relationship aside from the sub-leasing of the office space between the Defendant and Milinas In response, the Claimant submits that while there may no longer be a relationship that exists between the two entities, there was a relationship during the time the Claimant was working with the Defendant, as both these companies shared a common shareholder and director, Mistan.

31. The Court finds that having a common shareholder between two companies does not make the Defendant liable for the amounts owed to the Claimant, as each company has a separate legal entity and there is no legal contractual relationship between the companies.

32. In my view, it is unfortunate that the Claimant has suffered from Milinas.’s and the Defendant’s actions, but there is no employer-employee relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant. As such, I find that the Claimant’s claims must be dismissed.

Conclusion

33. In light of the aforementioned, I find that the Claimant’s claims shall be dismissed.

34. Each party shall bear their own costs.